ANIL KUMAR Vs. SATISH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of C.M. Nos. 720-CI of 1977 and 1591-CI of 1977 and 1591-CI of 1977 and R.F.A. No. 745 of 1977.

(2.) Briefly, the facts of the case which have given rise to this appeal are that Madan Singh, defendant No. 2 sold land measuring 19 Kanals and 15 Marlas, situated in village Dhulkote, Tehsil and District Ambala, to Satish Kumar, defendant No. 1, for a consideration of Rs. 21,900/-, vide sale-deed dated may 11, 1971. Anil Kumar and Rajinder Mohni plaintiffs instituted a suit for possession by pre-emption on the ground that plaintiff No. 1 was daughter's son and plaintiff No. 2 was the daughter of the vendor. The plaintiffs valued the suit for purposes of Court-fee and jurisdiction at Rs. 24/- and Rs. 72/- being 10 times and 30 times the land rvenue, respectively. Defendant No. 1 contested the suit and inter alia pleaded that the suit was not properly valued for the purpsoes of Court-fee and jurisdiction. The trial Court, having treated the issue regarding Court-fee and jurisdiction as preliminary, came to the conclusion that the suit was not properly valued for the purposes of Court-fee and jurisdiction and its value for the aforesaid purposes should have been Rs. 900/-. Consequently, it upheld the objection and directed the plaintiffs to make up the deficiency in Court-fee by September 25, 1974. The plaintiff did not make up the deficiency as directed by the trial Court. Consequently, the plaint was rejected by the Court on Septemebr 25, 1974.

(3.) The plaintiffs went up in appeal before the Additional District Judge and fixed its value for the purposes of Court-fee as Rs. 24/- and affixed a Court-fee stamp of Rs. 4.15 on the Memorandum of Appeal. The appeal was entertained by the Superintendent of the District Judge and the notice of the appeal was issued by the Additional District Judge to the respondents. On the date of hearing, a preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the respondents that the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. The objection was upheld and it was ordered that the memorandum of appeal be returned to the appellants for presentation to the Court of proper jurisdiciton vide order dated March 17, 1977. The memorandum of appeal was returned to the appellants on March 18, 1977 and was presented to this Court on the same day with the same amount of Court-fee.